If you think violence is merited you're going to do it. That's the point.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
"A Violent Response To Trump Is As Logical As Any" -huffingtonpost
- Thread starter Sir Alemeth
- Start date
- Status
I learned ITT that some posters believe that as long as the violence is against someone you disagree with, its ok to promote it and act on it. I also learned that there are still sane people who dont want to commit violence as their first option.
his point is that it doesnt really matter what happens to the trump supporter. At least, that is what I get from it and in general from other people in this thread promoting the use of violence.
his point is that it doesnt really matter what happens to the trump supporter. At least, that is what I get from it and in general from other people in this thread promoting the use of violence.
The fact that Trump supporters have had violent incidences is entirely irrelevant to my point.
It will also be entirely irrelevant to the Trump supporter who gets clocked in the back of the head by a rock, turns around and shoots the assailant during the second attack. The "but some guy in Wisconsin punched another guy" line will mean jack shit.
It's interesting though that we're so willing to accept that a Trump supporter is likely to be carrying and would be justified shooting in self defense. I never saw that point being made about protesters who were attacked. Sure, the attackers were admonished, but nobody ever came close to suggesting that the protesters should shoot back.
Violence against the political opponent during important elections always leads to good things.
It's fantastic for democracy.
It'll totally prevent that the other guys get to have their dicatorship. It's not a big deal if your team has it.
It's also totally great for future elections if it acutally works. the US of A, a country with countless guns among the general population, thinking violence is "morally justified" against political oponents. What a great prospect for the future.
It's fantastic for democracy.
It'll totally prevent that the other guys get to have their dicatorship. It's not a big deal if your team has it.
It's also totally great for future elections if it acutally works. the US of A, a country with countless guns among the general population, thinking violence is "morally justified" against political oponents. What a great prospect for the future.
Honestly the most disgusting thing I've found in this election is just how quickly Americans turn to violence when things don't go their way. Before Trump was even the nominee there were people encouraging others to attack and harm other people, and now that he is the nominee it's only gotten worse. The idea that violence is the first response for many people is god damn terrifying, and the fact that so much of it, like in this article, is coming from people against trump means it's not even a problem with just this candidate. It makes me wonder if something like this was coming regardless of this election being as much of a shitshow as it was.
People violently fighting for power is the default state.
Things like democratic elections are meant to prevent that but it requirers the loosing side accepting the loss instead of going for pitchforks.
That's not easy. It's also the reason you can't just bomb a dictator away and expect democracy to happen.
Except he has no real power yet. His most extreme view is blocking foreign muslims coming to the US. His build a wall stuff is again externally facing - having a system around immigration is not really that extreme. Its his wording that's extreme and concerning.
Truth is people don't like how he speaks about people. True its not nice but its also now policy or established politics. Whats the end goal of the violence? Start knocking on doors and debating with people. Intimidating people just builds walls and says 'you can never be on the left'.
I mean the American Hard Lefts means of dealing with racism is waiting for racists to die effectively. Its clearly not going to help in the short term so their strategy is flawed.
Hes not in power. Hes not part of the establishment.
Your just attacking your neighbours. Throwing crap into your neighbours garden is a flawed strategy for obvious reasons.
Truth is people don't like how he speaks about people. True its not nice but its also now policy or established politics. Whats the end goal of the violence? Start knocking on doors and debating with people. Intimidating people just builds walls and says 'you can never be on the left'.
I mean the American Hard Lefts means of dealing with racism is waiting for racists to die effectively. Its clearly not going to help in the short term so their strategy is flawed.
Hes not in power. Hes not part of the establishment.
Your just attacking your neighbours. Throwing crap into your neighbours garden is a flawed strategy for obvious reasons.
What's stopping the non-conservatives buying the exact same guns and using them the exact same way? Nothing except ideals.
I mean, if you're advocating violence against Trump supporters, then you shouldn't complain when a Trump supporter shoots and kills an attacker. Everyone has a right to defend themselves from bodily harm, regardless of their political views. If you're going to go down this route, you're going to have to take the good (whatever the hell that is) with the bad.
I also hope those advocating for violence will be on the front lines at not just be keyboard warriors in the safety of their homes. Put your money where your mouth is, so to speak.
I also hope those advocating for violence will be on the front lines at not just be keyboard warriors in the safety of their homes. Put your money where your mouth is, so to speak.
Vicetrailia
Member
Well, Trump did set the stage for violence when he encouraged it after his camp became violent.
But alas, I don't think that violence from the other side is necessary, voting is. All one must do is vote and encourage others to vote in order to win the battle. Trump has an uphill battle to fight, and he is his own worst enemy.
But alas, I don't think that violence from the other side is necessary, voting is. All one must do is vote and encourage others to vote in order to win the battle. Trump has an uphill battle to fight, and he is his own worst enemy.
Spuck-uk
Banned
So for instance, you'd be okay with Nazi parades in your city? Because in mine we toss bricks at them, and gleefully so.
Shouldn't worry too much about minorities getting violent towards Trump supporters anyway because they'll all be arrested and made an example of. Good thing we just started easing up on the drug war, making room for them in the prisons.
Incidentally, those people who would be locked up for violent political dissent would have been the same ones locked up on drug charges. That's probably just a really weird coincidence though.
Incidentally, those people who would be locked up for violent political dissent would have been the same ones locked up on drug charges. That's probably just a really weird coincidence though.
Comfort Jones
Banned
Oh boy this argument is gonna go real well.
QuickSilverD
Member
Freedom of Speech yo, you shouldn't throw bricks at people
KonradLaw
Member
If left looses control and gets extreme it will just turn into communism, which is just as bad as fascism.
"White people stop sharing your opinions in this thread thanks."
tkscz
Member
So then it's ok to attack trump supporters for supporting trump? I'm not talking about the ones that start fights, and clearly support his fascist ideals, I mean the ones that have not hit a single person and support him because of his propaganda. People who only crime they've committed is supporting an idiot whose ideals wouldn't make it past congress as even most of current and up coming congress members see him as a joke. People who might not even agree with his actual ideals but are persuaded by his use of their fears? I'm justified, as a black man, to attack these people because they MIGHT do something that most likely they won't do?
Sorry, but even writing that made me feel worse than the Trump supporters. That's nazi level stuff right there. Justifying my actions to harm others based on nothing but what ifs, fears, and differing opinions. What will I have achieved? This article is basically saying that the only way to stop them is to hurt them all. How does that not come off as equally as wrong as Trump supporters attacking someone who doesn't support Trump?
Sorry, but even writing that made me feel worse than the Trump supporters. That's nazi level stuff right there. Justifying my actions to harm others based on nothing but what ifs, fears, and differing opinions. What will I have achieved? This article is basically saying that the only way to stop them is to hurt them all. How does that not come off as equally as wrong as Trump supporters attacking someone who doesn't support Trump?
biggersmaller
Banned
Violence is not warranted. No fucking way. Just vote and campaign for Hillary if you don't like Trump. If he wins, it's not because of any other reason than America wants him in power - and throwing rocks at supporters is not going to change that.
The constant Hitler (or fascism comparisons) are foolish and make anti-Trump people look as bad as the right wingers who loved envoking fascism and Hitler when Obama was running.
Trump isn't breaking any rules here. The problem with Trump is the idiot Americans who support him. Without them he would be a b-list reality TV celebrity.
The constant Hitler (or fascism comparisons) are foolish and make anti-Trump people look as bad as the right wingers who loved envoking fascism and Hitler when Obama was running.
Trump isn't breaking any rules here. The problem with Trump is the idiot Americans who support him. Without them he would be a b-list reality TV celebrity.
PeskyToaster
Member
Like most comparisons to history by bloggers it falls when given half a second of additional thought. The situations between Hitler and Trump are completely different though they may rely on the same mechanisms as any other populist. It just the same old disingenuous scare tactic like the right calling Obama a communist. Trump does suck but he's not to 6 million murdered in death camps levels. It's almost insulting.
It also begins to normalize violence if someone holds opposing political views. A slippery slope if there ever was one.
bonesmccoy
Banned
There's something quite comical about a guy who, according to his bio, has been a student of some sort for all of his adult life, writing about it being 'logical' to use violence to suppress political groups he doesn't like.
It's been quite illuminating.
PeskyToaster
Member
It even went beyond brawling. Several political organizations on the Right and Left had their own uniformed, armed paramilitary organizations. The Nazis had the SA, the more center (more center when compared to the Nazis, doesn't mean much) right had the Stahlhelms, the far left had the Rote Front. On top of that many of the parties in Germany at the time were actively working to dismantle the democracy and install themselves as the leader, bring back the kaiser, or create a Soviet style government. Nothing remotely similar to what is going on in America today.
You're conflating Marxism-Leninism and communism.
depths20XX
Member
What a terrible article.
Using violence to attack a political opponent because you don't like the stuff they say is a terrible idea.
Using violence to attack a political opponent because you don't like the stuff they say is a terrible idea.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
Meanwhile on the conservative side
Bunch of tacticool nonsense. Person probably ain't even a good shot.
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
Quoting to get back to this point.
For those who say violence is never a good option. That it'll never lead to victory, what have you done to stop the rise of Trump?
It happened on all of our watches. In our need for order, our lack of confronting the ugliness created these past 8 years.
Why are you ok with that? If you aren't, what are you going to do about it, even beyond the election?
Because POCs, LGBTs, etc... We'll be dealing with this long after Trump is gone. With or without help.
Cindi Mayweather
Member
Trump may lose but his philosophy won't be gone. We need to take action.
entremet
Member
Violence does help historically, but name a recent long term social issue that has been solved with violence?
We're still a culture that, by and large, respect laws.
T
Transhuman
Unconfirmed Member
I didn't throw rocks at Trump supporters and pretend I'm a hero.
PeskyToaster
Member
Has anyone here actually beat up a Tump supporter?
For an outsider like me just the fact that trump is the official Republican nominee legitimized every single thing he said/says.
At the end of the day even if trump loses 40-60, to me it says 40% of the American population agreed with trumps ideas and rhetoric. This is what I find both damaging and scary.
At the end of the day even if trump loses 40-60, to me it says 40% of the American population agreed with trumps ideas and rhetoric. This is what I find both damaging and scary.
Pejo
Member
Bolded is true and crazy, and that scares the hell out of me. I saw this sentiment from GAFfers in the San Jose rally thread too.
I don't believe that in a civilized society, and democracy, that violence should ever be used in these types of situations. This only further enforces the "us vs. them" of politics and totally shuts down any chance of working together. It also sets a bad precedent that violence is the best resort to get things that you want. It's just all bad.
GeordieMark
Member
Violence just leads to more violence. Easily one of the stupidest articles I've had the misfortune to read. That guy is a complete moron.
All of that education and not a single clue. What a waste.
All of that education and not a single clue. What a waste.
entremet
Member
Not only that but it creates a perpetual arms race of violence. See the Middle East.
Just shocking stuff.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
Cool. What are you doing about this situation then?
Good for you. What are you doing about this situation then?
Awesome. What are you doing about this situation then?
This is what I'm talking about. We have a situation NOW. Have been, and not nearly enough people have done stuff to halt it. Why couldn't more white people talk to their peers about why they shouldn't support a guy like Trump?
Why did his rhetoric get this far with so many Americans if order and civility is meant to bring about progress? Why hasn't it been actionable?
Whilst I disagree with the idea that TRump right now justifies a violent response, it is also objectively wrong that violence is never the answer in a civilized society.
The entirety of the modern LGBT rights movement came from violence. From a population pushed so much, eventually they pushed back. Prior to Stonewall, LGBT rights was about us being "normal" and completely and utterly different to what we now see it is - the "homophile" movement. I'm not a violent person myself, but the fact is if a group of transgender and young gay kids not rioted in Stonewall when the police went after them, I wouldn't be getting married sometime soon and living in a society where who I love isn't an issue. I can't ignore that, and it demeans what they went through for me to pretend that violence isn't sometimes necessary.
Again, absolutely nt suggesting violence against Trump should happen now. But we cannot ignore the fact that violence is sometimes needed unless we pretend history didn't happen. Peaceful protest is not always effective.
entremet
Member
I vote.
What has Trump done to threaten progress?
Because looking through the arc of of the last 16 years, progressive policies have been winning.
It seems you've been focusing too much on this Trump panic. Liberals tend to panic too much and not think of the long game. Conservatives are way better here.
Populist nativist style candidates like Trump appear every few decades. It's not something that's ending anytime soon. It's not an indictment on America.
Pejo
Member
Excuse me, but who the fuck are you to evaluate what I've done in this situation. I've been educating friends and family on the policies, and helping people understand the bad and worse things that Trump believes. And guess what, I might actually change a few minds.
Meanwhile, I could just go throw a rock at them and call it a day, right?
I don't disagree that throughout history, violence has caused change. But this isn't the time. This is the time to educate, discuss, and debate. I do see and recognize your point on the LGBT situation though, even though I was previously unaware of the Stonewall riots.
Calamari41
41 > 38
You throw bricks at people? Yikes. Where do you live?
I wouldn't be ok with such a parade, but I certainly wouldn't attempt to murder the participants.
Mammoth Jones
Member
This.
There's a difference between being against something and being willing to engage in violence because a group of people have shitty ideas you disagree with. Really bringing out the lunatics in people.
Fucking vote, finish Trump's career and let the bigots crawl back in their hole. Don't have to stoop to their level to deal with them at this point. Now if they're running wild rounding people up to go to camps by all means, fight the fuck back. But I wish folks would stop pretending we are anywhere near that point.
Which is exactly my point. Like I said, right now I don't think violence is appropriate against Trump at all. It's wrong on every level, it makes things worse. The USA has a democratic system, let the process work.
I just dislike the intrinsic "violence is always wrong" argument people give, because it's simply not true and I feel it disparages people who have used violence in the past. Who am I to lecture the people who rioted at Stonewall that they were wrong given everything that arose from that? It's very easy to argue from a position of privilege that you should never use violence, but the fact is sometimes the system is so rigged and the injustice so great that protests have to go beyond discussion. Similarly, had the black community not rioted in Brixton in the 80s then we would never have had the improvements to community policing in my country that saw a step change in how the police work in different communities and neighborhoods. When everything is against you and no-one even bothers to pretend to listen, I'm not going to tell someone to go to another meeting - even if I myself am incapable of violence.
This doesn't make any sense. You're specifically addressing people who are saying that violence will "never lead to victory" and then assuming agreement that a lack of violent resistance is why we've got Trump.
I mean, of course you're going to get responses like you're replying to now. You keep asking what they're doing, but from their perspective they're already doing more than you even if they're doing nothing. At least they're not working for Trump like you are (or at least as you're advocating for).
There's an optimism here which is kind of strange to me. It's like people see politics as a puzzle game and decide that there must be a way to win in three moves if only they can find it. We haven't won yet, so clearly we've got to do something radically different. The argument for violence is basically process of elimination: "well, something has to work". But something doesn't have to work. You actually need reasons for thinking that your strategy would help if you want to persuade anybody. Reiterating that things are bad and aren't getting better as quickly as many would like isn't going to cut it.
And, like, there's a pretty mainstream analysis of Trumpism that you're not really engaging with. A common way of thinking about Trump is that the Republican Party is in the state it's in just because things have been getting better and totally ordinary, non-violent methods are becoming more and more capable of achieving positive change. The usual thinking here is that this is racist conservatives lashing out because they can see that they don't wield the power they used to. It's harder and harder for them to win elections. You can't really avoid this sort of lashing out - there was no good strategy to prevent something like Trump - but it only happened in the first place because we're winning. This is a pretty common sort of reaction - look at the Civil Rights Movement. That white conservative politics got especially racialized and ugly at the time isn't evidence that civil rights activists were doing something wrong. And in fact it's pretty easy to argue that this sort of lashing out is itself long-term harmful to the lashers getting what they want. 2010 was a significant setback but the problem there was pretty obviously that not enough people voted - doing perfectly ordinary party-based political activism like GOTV work in an off-year seems like it'd be way more useful than just about anything else.
It's really very strange to throw in LGBTs at the end given just how rapidly they're winning at everything. Like, if there's one group that doesn't seem to have any reason to abandon the normal political process in order to better secure their rights, that's the one. Backlash here is transparently just mean-spirited bullshit because of how badly their opponents keep losing in polls and at the ballot box.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked